Are the assumptions of science justified?

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm
Re: Are the assumptions of science justified?

Post by The Pixie » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:59 pm

met wrote:Disagree & that's what I was saying above. Sometimes new science just reinterprets old phenomena.....

Eg, the Copernican helio-centric universe merely simplified the model, no? Didn't add any new predictions.....
His helio-centric model was adopted because it was a better model, i.e., it made better predictions. In fact, it was more complicated than the geo-centric model, as he assumed circular orbits, it was (I think) only simpler once Kepler introduced elipses.

http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningS ... 2_sub2.htm
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/#2.1
.... & there is - for a more contemporary eg - a new hypothesis in cosmology that the rate of cosmic expansion IS NOT accelerating after all, as has been the dominant theory for the past few years ...& its strength is NOT that it predicts anything different, but that it doesn't need to assume the existence of "dark energy" like the universal acceleration theory does - which removes with a rather tenuous and difficult concept - so it simplifies things.
Can you link to a web page about that? I suspect you are reading more into it than is there. Whether the rate of expansion is acceerating of not is an observation, and yes, doubt has recently been cast on that. Further, "dark energy" is an unknown. It is not a scientific explanation, but rather a placeholder for something that requires one. Most importantly, however, the reason for thinking cosmic expansion IS not accelerating after all is better data from supernovas, and certainly NOT to simplify the maths!

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Are the assumptions of science justified?

Post by Metacrock » Thu Dec 22, 2016 8:09 pm

Metacrock wrote:
FT argument redocts lots of things, It predictrs the rarity of life bearing planets,
Px It predicts the same thing as the alternatives. This is why I have been talking about bold predictions. To be science, it has to make bold predictions, it has to predict something novel.
those studies are no different than any other social science research. Id any study on human behavior is scientific those are, They have the same potential for diverse outcomes as any notifier,l It' ludicrous to pretend there's no distinction between positive or negative outcomes from an experience. we could predict that rape has psychologically devastating results for it;s victims, Then test to see if rape victims demonstrate such effect,then you could say that predicts the fro both alternatives, but does it? psychological devastation,or getting over it are those the same?

take out "rape" and put in "mystical experience" the difference in remaining a heroine addict or getting off, re those the same?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Are the assumptions of science justified?

Post by met » Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:01 pm

The Pixie wrote:
met wrote:Disagree & that's what I was saying above. Sometimes new science just reinterprets old phenomena.....

Eg, the Copernican helio-centric universe merely simplified the model, no? Didn't add any new predictions.....
His helio-centric model was adopted because it was a better model, i.e., it made better predictions. In fact, it was more complicated than the geo-centric model, as he assumed circular orbits, it was (I think) only simpler once Kepler introduced elipses.

http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningS ... 2_sub2.htm
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/#2.1
.... & there is - for a more contemporary eg - a new hypothesis in cosmology that the rate of cosmic expansion IS NOT accelerating after all, as has been the dominant theory for the past few years ...& its strength is NOT that it predicts anything different, but that it doesn't need to assume the existence of "dark energy" like the universal acceleration theory does - which removes with a rather tenuous and difficult concept - so it simplifies things.
Can you link to a web page about that? I suspect you are reading more into it than is there. Whether the rate of expansion is acceerating of not is an observation, and yes, doubt has recently been cast on that. Further, "dark energy" is an unknown. It is not a scientific explanation, but rather a placeholder for something that requires one. Most importantly, however, the reason for thinking cosmic expansion IS not accelerating after all is better data from supernovas, and certainly NOT to simplify the maths!
Px, I didn't mean the specifically Copernican original model, tho it might have sounded like I did.....


Second, i think that article is really saying more or less like what I said too?
. the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.

'So it is quite possible that we are being misled and that the apparent manifestation of dark energy is a consequence of analysing the data in an oversimplified theoretical model – one that was in fact constructed in the 1930s, long before there was any real data. A more sophisticated theoretical framework accounting for the observation that the universe is not exactly homogeneous and that its matter content may not behave as an ideal gas – two key assumptions of standard cosmology – may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy. Indeed, vacuum energy is something of which we have absolutely no understanding in fundamental theory.'

...the point being, there's no inconsistency with an accelerating cosmos in the new data, but by assuming a less simplified model of vacumn energetic flux, you can do away with the dark energy hypothesis .....which leaves a simpler, more comprehensible overall picture?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Are the assumptions of science justified?

Post by The Pixie » Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:02 am

met wrote:Px, I didn't mean the specifically Copernican original model, tho it might have sounded like I did.....
The point is that each successive model was adopted because it gave better predictions, not because it was simpler. The Copernican was more complex than the model it replaced. The Einsteinian model is too. Sure a simple model nice, but that is absolutely not the reason why a model is replaced.
Second, i think that article is really saying more or less like what I said too?
...
...the point being, there's no inconsistency with an accelerating cosmos in the new data, but by assuming a less simplified model of vacumn energetic flux, you can do away with the dark energy hypothesis .....which leaves a simpler, more comprehensible overall picture?
All else being equal the simpler explanation is preferred, sure. In this case neither are accepted science; they are still at the stage of hypotheses up for discussion. My understanding is that both make predictions, but the data as yet is not good enough to confirm one or the other properly as yet, and there are still unknowns involved.

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts:2424
Joined:Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Are the assumptions of science justified?

Post by sgttomas » Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:11 am

Hey! This sounds a lot like the conversation going on in this thread. Neat! https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com ... ne-debate/
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

Post Reply